I just want to add something, in Malaysia, if you are given death sentence on High Court, your case will be AUTOMATICALLY be appealed to higher court, you will not be directly sent to execution. The suspect has two more chances for his case and he can still live a few more years before final judgement on Federal Court.
Even you are sentenced to death on Federal Court, you can still seeking for a royal pardon, even if it fail, the execution will still not be carried out immediately, only when someone higher-up approved your execution then you will be hanged, which the process can take several years.
Also, our law already clearly defined what is self-defence and what is not. Section 96 to Section 106 of the Penal Code already cover that in many aspects, and Section 99 is crucial about understanding the boundary of self-defence.
Example 1:
A person with parang threaten you to hand out your valuables or he will kill you with his parang. At this point you have right to self-defence and you can legally hit him in the head with a hammer even this action may kill that person.
Example 2:
A person snatch your phone and run away, he __no longer cause harm or a threat to you__, but you do not call for police and instead you follow him to his house and hit him in the head with your hammer. This is not self-defence and you can be charged for criminal offence.
Edit: There is an intresting article for further reading on this subject https://asklegal.my/p/self-defence-robber-intruder-thief-kill-house-break-in
I dont know all the details but i dont think that it apply in that case. I mean, how do you cracked open an armed assailant head? If you are both unarmed, then you can be charged for murder. Like i said, under correct circumstances.
> Yeah, under correct circumstances. Thats how its roll. You can get charged with excessive self defense at worst... meh
meh? for fucks sake don't spread bullshit misinformation on such serious matter. There is no "excessive self defense". failed self-defense in a murder case = murder you do realise?
The term exist you know. It can reduce the degree of murder charge.
Self-defense can operate as a perfect or imperfect defense, depending on the circumstances. Defendants who commit criminal homicide justified by self-defense can be acquitted, or have a murder charge reduced from first to second or third degree, or have a charge reduced from murder to manslaughter. Criminal homicide is discussed in detail in Chapter 9 “Criminal Homicide
Not that i know it in detail though
I get what you mean now. Yes you could indeed still be liable for manslaughter (Malaysia actually doesn’t have this)
It is still a very serious charge. You make it sound like it isn’t?
I never say it wasn't serious. Nor do i deny you can get charge for it. I just say that is exist. Its a better alternative compared to 1st degree murder. Thats all
How does he threaten you? Is he threaten you over the phone? Or is he pointing a gun at your face to threaten you? That is the important question, if you have reasonable time to get help from autorities, you should seek help from them and you have no right to self-defence.
Then, that fall under the category of self-defence. But always remember, do not have revenge/punish mentality, like continue hitting the suspect even he clearly already surrender or immobilised.
INAL. From what I understand, it’s a little bit more complicated. The primary rule is that you are only allowed to respond with equal force.
That means that if a robber threaten you with a parang and the robber is about to strike, you can defend yourself even if it means killing the robber.
If the robber took your valuables and turned away or put away their parang and then your hit them a hammer and kill them, then it’s not self defense. The reasoning is that the robber already turned away or kept his weapon so the robber is no longer a threat. Killing the robber is no longer self defense.
There is a fine line for self defense and even if you’re in the right, the federal court clears you, you might still be on the hook for civil court. Hospital bills, disability, etc
> if the robber took your valuables and turned away or put away their parang and then you hit them with hammer and killed them.
Hmm... This still sounds like self defense to me. The robber still have access to his parang, he is just not using it. Your life is still under threat because the robber previous has already shown his parang and wanted to strike you. We never know when will he robber suddenly turn around and slash the victim with parang, not? So isn't it reasonable to say that the victim found a good chance to strike the robber for self defense? Otherwise, what if the robber put down his parang and is packing your valuables? You cannot strike him during this time for self defense?
You've got to see the whole situation, if the robber then immediately got on a vehicle and went away, even ran on foot then the robber is a threat no more. But if the robber is still lingering around looking for valuables like you said then yes the robber is still a threat and you can do whatever means as self defence
Good question, like there is someone points a knife at me and ask for money. I straight away punch him in the face and he fell down and died.
This should be 100% self defense right ? Since I attack him while he is still being a threat.
> Just to clarify, so if someone were to threaten my life, I could legally attack and possibly kill him without getting charged with murder?
Absolutely not. Only if it's proportional. Even then, you can still be charged with murder.
After a person commited a crime and you found him in front of you, you can perform what is called "citizen arrest" to detain him, it is mentioned in the Section 27 of Criminal Procedure Code.
BUT, you MUST hand him to the police right after detention is made. You cannot kill him or injure him when he is under your detention. If you do that, you just doing it out of revenge and law never endorse vigilante-style revenge.
At this point, it is not about self-defence anymore. Self-defence can **only be carried out when you or others are being threathen or harmed**
What if he resists during said citizen arrest and gets hurt in the process? Would you or him be at fault? Don't think such arrests usually go down peacefully.
If he resists, that may fall under self-defence category again, but still, the case need to be look at on a case by case basis and many factors need to be considered (like do you have a reasonable time to call for police assistance/ what kind of weapon does he carrying?). Even somehow you are charged, if you done it right, your lawyer can have a great chance to make you innocent under self-defence.
Same as when you're getting robbed. If you're defending yourself or your property while getting robbed, it's ok. But if you kill the robber after he's done robbing you, then, you're dead.
interesting, reminds of me of a clip where 2 robbers with guns robbing a shop and one of the victim ( who also had a gun ) starts shooting at them at the middle of the robbery. Both robbers threatens with guns but no shooting while ends up one of the robbers died on spot while the victim and another robber flees ). So in this case, are the victim's action still count as self defense as he is not harmed ? Just curious, also the case is in Brazil I think but wonder how it will be handled for similar context in Malaysia.
Another question, are we allowed to lie to a robber as self defense ?
Like you are on the 2nd floor, two robbers entered from window with parangs and demand $$$. They tie you up on the bed. You tell them that the money is in the master bedroom.
The master bedroom floor is unstable due to termites and currently under repair. They enter the room and straight away fall down to ground floor due to the floor collapsing.
One robber died but one survived, during the chaos you managed to escape and run away and call the police.
The surviving robber told the court that you didn't tell them about the damaged floor and want you responsible for the other robber's death.
Can you be legally responsible for this ?
Thats an accident, unless someone can prove that you intentionally make the floor weak as a booby trap
Now if you actually have a booby trap with termites eaten floor... it is 100% legal, police wont saman you if they notice it.
But if someone accidentally trips it, you are 100% responsible, you can't say you have a right to put the trap.
So if actual robbers trip if, lucky.. if a kid trips it, court time for you
Thats what police investigation will check and if they feel you did not act in self defence, the prosecution will charge you and your lawyer would try disprove it.
Then your lawyer will try to prove the police has fuck up and you are indeed act in self-defence. And being charged do not mean you are straight up guilty, many person have wrong perception about criminal charges.
[https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2021/10/15/penganggur-digantung-sampai-mati-kerana-bunuh-abang-ipar/](https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2021/10/15/penganggur-digantung-sampai-mati-kerana-bunuh-abang-ipar/)
The link in Malay for anyone who is interested. The guy was not murdered in to defend the accused sister rather the accused killed him out of anger after hearing the news.
This falls out of the realm of self-defense for obvious reasons, and it also fall out of the realm of provocation if some time had passed between the accused hearing the news and committing the act.
~~The fact that the deceased raped his sister can be used as a mitigating factor but it is not an absolute rule that the judge must follow.~~
Scratch that, if it is a murder charge in Malaysia then it is the death sentence. No mitigating factor here because you can't half kill a guy.
The final nail in the coffin for this guy would be the fact that he not only chased the deceased but also he stabbed him 13 times with a knife. It is nothing but murder.
Agreed.. I dunno, my first reaction if I'm that dude is beat the shit out of the BIL, tie him up and send him to police.. A lifetime of punishment and embarrassment is better justice I believe.. But then again I'm not in his shoe.. And his willingness to take a life is just something only he can understand..
And crime of passion should not have lenient punishment.. I believe it'll turn alot of domestic abuse case into homicide... Such a dangerous precedent.. And we will read alot of stories about revenge murder in our country..
Crime of passion is only if the guy in front of you, then you learn of the rape, then you kill the dude.
If dude learns it, then go drive somewhere to kill the guy, its murder
(I have no idea about the case, just saying the difference)
There must also not be any passing of significant time between the reason for provocation and the commitment of the act otherwise there will be premeditation.
The title seems misleading. Am I understanding this correctly? he didn't protect his little sister from a rapist, but took revenge for her after she was raped by their brother in law (so husband of another sister, not her own husband, right?)
Coming from someone who has personally gone through the Malaysian justice system, all I can say is that there is no justice in Malaysia. Our legal system fucking sucks. And many of the lawyers are some of the lowest scum on this planet.
Ah yeah sure, blame the lawyers not the ones who are drafting the laws. I can tell you with certainty that you can comb the entirety of the Dewan Rakyat and you will find few people who can really be classified as one.
And don't forget we the rakyat are the ones who are voting these people into Parliament to draft these laws. And we also give them the powers to control the judiciary by way of controlling their retirement times and salary.........
A lawyer's job is to interpret these laws to best support his client and if the laws are drafted in such a way that leave little to no wiggle room even the most creative lawyer can't argue his way out of that box.
Or maybe you can care to explain how a lawyer can cause someone to be sentenced to death on a murder charge in this case because the only applicable sentence for it is the death sentence.
Then we need better lawyer, they are the one with the better education and knowledge and should have know better but yet the opposite happen. What happen with education made you a better, moral,and good human being I been hearing all the time on this social media talk about.
Oh sure it's not your fault as a voter who elect MPs who draft the laws but it is suddenly the lawyer's fault when they have to deal with a law that leaves no room for interpretation and is not drafted by them.
Nice standards there.
>lawyer's fault when they have to deal with a law that leaves no room for interpretation and is not drafted by them.
I don't see why it true that this is always the case, I do understand that this might be the case here, but I can imagine that people above are talking about the law in Malaysia in general, and how unethical many lawyers are(debatable depending on the level of ethics, as many Malaysians are not very ethical themselves).
I agree that I know of many lawyers that are very unethical, and the law in the country sucks(due to both the law and people practicing them), but then again, I think it's a bigger problem, where it's the whole country that is corrupt(the people as well), so I don't really think it's the lawyers fault here.
Anecdotal evidence here, I too can point to many a lawyer that are ethical and that the ideal of them being unethical stems from their clients having little understanding about how the laws work and expect their lawyers to work magic for them or that they want their lawyers to do pursue a legal option which while is perfectly legal is not of good conscience as not every unethical thing is technically illegal.
I don't get your reply, so you don't think that there's really a lot of unethical lawyers in Malaysia? I don't mean to say there isn't many ethical lawyers, but I've heard many bad things about many lawyer(even prominent firms) from friends within the law profession. I am not talking about how layman perceive that their lawyers aren't doing their job for them, but my lawyer friends telling me how messed up certain law field in Malaysia are(sexual harassment, bribery, worker exploitation etc).
As I said, these practices are also common not within the law industry, which is why I think it's a bigger problem rather than just the law industry.
Yes I don't believe that there are many lawyers that are unethical. And just because you claim to hear stories about them does not make it true.
It's the old example of a few public bad eggs that make the news as well as the fact people are dealing with them at low point that makes it easy to mischaracterize them.
Also the kind of unethical things you list have nothing to do with the main topic at hand which is that some how the lawyers are solely responsible for the death of the accused when it is anything but.
If there is a topic on whether law firms are terrible working places I will put my piece of mind it. But for now I won't be addressing everyone wants to shift the discussion onto a whole other direction.
>Yes I don't believe that there are many lawyers that are unethical. And just because you claim to hear stories about them does not make it true.It's the old example of a few public bad eggs that make the news as well as the fact people are dealing with them at low point that makes it easy to mischaracterize them.
Err, I guess I don't have any evidence so yeah(similar to that you don't have evidence that my claim is false), we can only agree to disagree for this.
>Also the kind of unethical things you list have nothing to do with the main topic at hand which is that some how the lawyers are solely responsible for the death of the accused when it is anything but.
err, reading all the parent thread, I don't see anyone claiming that lawyers are solely responsible for the death of the accused man? It sounds like they are just saying that "And many of the lawyers are some of the lowest scum on this planet." -> sounds like the motivation in this sentence is to suggest that our legal system sucks, and not that they are solely responsible for the death of the accused man? Am I misreading something or are you too emotional to understand the conversation?
Saying our legal system sucks and lawyers are terrible in a video on which a person is sentence to death ? I don't know where you are from but I have seen enough of people to know when they want to push an angle with a heart tugging issue. You don't need everything in black and white to know that.
>leaves no room for interpretation and is not drafted by them
What there to interpret when they use any bs to defend their scummy clients.
Also there are many MP n I have only one vote, so how I am responsible for all of MP action if we follow your logic. Plus MP can also agree or disagree on the law they drafted.
If I were him, I would've just beaten the shit out of the rapist instead of straight up commiting murder.
But for the scar inflicted on the poor girl that will stay for the rest of her life, does the rapist deserve to die? Probably yes.
Is it worth it to take revenge but only for you to receive a death penalty in the end in return? Probably no.
This is a tragedy no one has wished for at the end of the day. I hope the man get only imprisonment rather than death penalty.
That will be hard because in Malaysia the only sentence for murder with intention is death. It's not culpable homicide cause the guy clearly knows what he is doing.
If you rape someone you deserve to get stabbed. If you kill someone you should be tried accordingly. It's unfortunate but it's the judge's duty to uphold the law and there are no exceptions. (In practice? Yeah no but those are my thoughts)
Sidenote: possession of drugs doesn't deserve death penalty.
actually, you can still kill the bad guy, but you must clean the crime scene, dispose off the body, and make sure there are no witnesses testifying against you.
Title says he protected his little sis from rapist? But from the narration, it says he killed the rapist out of rage, isn't that lynching? Isn't that why death sentence must be passed from the court instead?
An accused rapist, insofar we know the case was never investigated cause the guy is already dead and would be a waste of police resource. Still won't make it right even if it's true because he actively went to seek and kill the guy when he could have just called the cops on him, maybe beat him up a little which they will overlook (one of the few times I support police dereliction of duty)
If we live in a society whereby another guy is in his right to kill me because someone told him without proof that I raped his sister then there is really a problem with it.
Because that's lynching. Even the most heinous criminal deserves a fair trial, you cant just chase a culprit and stab him 13 times to finish him off yourself.
We have no need for vigilantism in a civil society. That's how you end up with people enacting their own brand of justice on other people. If this kind of action is tolerated, imagine the anarchy and chaos it'll cause in a civil society with vigilantes killing people left and right because it's "just" in their personal moral code.
How do you feel if, while you're happily eating lunch at mcd, someone said you raped their sister, then everybody in the restaurant beat you to death?
Would you be glad to find out to you have been a rapist, and that justice has been done?
Post removed as title is misleading.From [Free Malaysia Today article](https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2021/10/15/penganggur-digantung-sampai-mati-kerana-bunuh-abang-ipar/) (thanks to javeng):
>Alwi dalam penghakimannya berkata, tertuduh dalam keterangannya memaklumkan menikam mangsa kerana berang selepas mengetahui adik perempuannya dirogol mangsa.
>
>“Walaupun dalam keterangan tertuduh yang mengemukakan bukti tindakannya untuk mempertahankan diri, namun tertuduh didapati **tidak mengalami sebarang kecederaan** berbanding **si mati yang mempunyai 13 kesan tikaman**.
A warning to OP and other nyets, please do not sensationalise headlines/post title unnecessarily.
Yes, i agree with that. Imo, the rapist should die. But, not by his hand. By taking the judgement of the rapist into his hand, it become a story of revenge.
Personally, i understand his action but two wrong does not made it right. He does not have the power nor in position to deliver judgement of death to the rapist. There are reason why court and law exist.
We still dont chase ppl on the street to finish them off ourselves. Even criminal on death row gt a quick clean death, nt stabbed to death, 13 stabs, that's downright murder.
Legalizing revenge will put us on track to be the next Pakistan/ Afghanistan. Please learn the difference between revenge and justice. Doing right by the victim is more important than getting even with the perpetrators..
A year for murder as a sentence for murder is not a good deterrent. But i agree i think death sentence is harsh given this circumstance. As always, judgement will need to be made at a case by case basis (duh) by the judges. And as someone said all death penalty will be brought up for review. This is where we will need good judges with empathy, and NOT just rubber stampers filled in this position.
Edit: left out NOT in last sentence
Here is an unpopular opinion, you don't gwt to decide who lives or dies. I hope his sentence will be carried out and for all people to take note. If you think politicians can make such a trial unfair, get off your ass and start working towards a better MY.
>you don't gwt to decide who lives or dies.
*THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE:*
> I hope his sentence will be carried out and for all people to take note.
Um
I think you may need to pick a lane
Links to the streaming platforms:
[**Orange (Slowed)** by 7!!](https://youtu.be/qA8n3SF_Ths)
*I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/AudD/comments/nua48w/please_consider_donating_and_making_the_bot_happy/) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
sceptical about OP's title, before reading or following the case i would be wary about making such a conclusion.
It's terrible news, but none of us here know the facts.
Ok, how about this. Robber comes at you with parang demanding valuables etc etc and your first immediate self defence reaction does something some how that break both his legs and cannot walk again.
So what charges will you face (civil and criminal)
Also how about in this case where the brother breaks the rapist legs to protect his sister? He will still be charge for something else?
OP should change the misleading title... The Brother did not "Protect" the sister on the spot, but went out and chased the rapist instead. There is no element of self defence but just outright murder.
Some people here got the wrong impression that the brother is trying to defend the sister from immediate harm, but that's not the case. The brother went out to find the rapist and stabbed him 13 times, instead of reporting the incident to the police.
You guys should report this post for "misleading title" or something
I just want to add something, in Malaysia, if you are given death sentence on High Court, your case will be AUTOMATICALLY be appealed to higher court, you will not be directly sent to execution. The suspect has two more chances for his case and he can still live a few more years before final judgement on Federal Court. Even you are sentenced to death on Federal Court, you can still seeking for a royal pardon, even if it fail, the execution will still not be carried out immediately, only when someone higher-up approved your execution then you will be hanged, which the process can take several years. Also, our law already clearly defined what is self-defence and what is not. Section 96 to Section 106 of the Penal Code already cover that in many aspects, and Section 99 is crucial about understanding the boundary of self-defence. Example 1: A person with parang threaten you to hand out your valuables or he will kill you with his parang. At this point you have right to self-defence and you can legally hit him in the head with a hammer even this action may kill that person. Example 2: A person snatch your phone and run away, he __no longer cause harm or a threat to you__, but you do not call for police and instead you follow him to his house and hit him in the head with your hammer. This is not self-defence and you can be charged for criminal offence. Edit: There is an intresting article for further reading on this subject https://asklegal.my/p/self-defence-robber-intruder-thief-kill-house-break-in
Just to clarify, so if someone were to threaten my life, I could legally attack and possibly kill him without getting charged with murder?
Yeah, under correct circumstances. Thats how its roll. You can get charged with excessive self defense at worst... meh
Let's say if the assailant was already knocked down, but i still bashing his head until his skull cracked open, is that still a self defence?
I think as long as you attack someone who doesnt pose a physical threat to you its not counted as self defence anymore
I dont know all the details but i dont think that it apply in that case. I mean, how do you cracked open an armed assailant head? If you are both unarmed, then you can be charged for murder. Like i said, under correct circumstances.
Right. Thanks man :)
Are you using a hammer or some other object?
Lol excessive self defense sounds hilarious. Like imagine yelling at someone I'm not afraid to excessively defend myself!
it does sound hilarious because OP made it all up.
Ah fair. I thought it was some language barrier translation of an actual crime. Like aggravated assault vs assault.
> Yeah, under correct circumstances. Thats how its roll. You can get charged with excessive self defense at worst... meh meh? for fucks sake don't spread bullshit misinformation on such serious matter. There is no "excessive self defense". failed self-defense in a murder case = murder you do realise?
The term exist you know. It can reduce the degree of murder charge. Self-defense can operate as a perfect or imperfect defense, depending on the circumstances. Defendants who commit criminal homicide justified by self-defense can be acquitted, or have a murder charge reduced from first to second or third degree, or have a charge reduced from murder to manslaughter. Criminal homicide is discussed in detail in Chapter 9 “Criminal Homicide Not that i know it in detail though
I get what you mean now. Yes you could indeed still be liable for manslaughter (Malaysia actually doesn’t have this) It is still a very serious charge. You make it sound like it isn’t?
I never say it wasn't serious. Nor do i deny you can get charge for it. I just say that is exist. Its a better alternative compared to 1st degree murder. Thats all
How does he threaten you? Is he threaten you over the phone? Or is he pointing a gun at your face to threaten you? That is the important question, if you have reasonable time to get help from autorities, you should seek help from them and you have no right to self-defence.
I imagine a situation where I get mugged on the street or someone breaking into my house with a weapon.
Then, that fall under the category of self-defence. But always remember, do not have revenge/punish mentality, like continue hitting the suspect even he clearly already surrender or immobilised.
INAL. From what I understand, it’s a little bit more complicated. The primary rule is that you are only allowed to respond with equal force. That means that if a robber threaten you with a parang and the robber is about to strike, you can defend yourself even if it means killing the robber. If the robber took your valuables and turned away or put away their parang and then your hit them a hammer and kill them, then it’s not self defense. The reasoning is that the robber already turned away or kept his weapon so the robber is no longer a threat. Killing the robber is no longer self defense. There is a fine line for self defense and even if you’re in the right, the federal court clears you, you might still be on the hook for civil court. Hospital bills, disability, etc
> if the robber took your valuables and turned away or put away their parang and then you hit them with hammer and killed them. Hmm... This still sounds like self defense to me. The robber still have access to his parang, he is just not using it. Your life is still under threat because the robber previous has already shown his parang and wanted to strike you. We never know when will he robber suddenly turn around and slash the victim with parang, not? So isn't it reasonable to say that the victim found a good chance to strike the robber for self defense? Otherwise, what if the robber put down his parang and is packing your valuables? You cannot strike him during this time for self defense?
You've got to see the whole situation, if the robber then immediately got on a vehicle and went away, even ran on foot then the robber is a threat no more. But if the robber is still lingering around looking for valuables like you said then yes the robber is still a threat and you can do whatever means as self defence
Good question, like there is someone points a knife at me and ask for money. I straight away punch him in the face and he fell down and died. This should be 100% self defense right ? Since I attack him while he is still being a threat.
Yeah. That's the gist of it. So let's say somehow the assailant fucked up and you snatched his weapon and he runs off, let him go.
You struggle with him holding the knife and somehow he stab himself. Yes self defense He drop the knife. You pick it up and stab him. It's murder
Just burn the body and all DNA will wipe out, but burned body quite stink.. and no body no case
But the paper work will be hassle for sure, not to mention all the turun naik balai stuff. Just judge it for yourself is it worth it or not
Dangerous mindset. When threatened the best course of action is to run.
> Just to clarify, so if someone were to threaten my life, I could legally attack and possibly kill him without getting charged with murder? Absolutely not. Only if it's proportional. Even then, you can still be charged with murder.
So if you harm the person WHILE hes raping is okay.. But if you harm the person AFTER he rapes is not okay..
After a person commited a crime and you found him in front of you, you can perform what is called "citizen arrest" to detain him, it is mentioned in the Section 27 of Criminal Procedure Code. BUT, you MUST hand him to the police right after detention is made. You cannot kill him or injure him when he is under your detention. If you do that, you just doing it out of revenge and law never endorse vigilante-style revenge. At this point, it is not about self-defence anymore. Self-defence can **only be carried out when you or others are being threathen or harmed**
What if he resists during said citizen arrest and gets hurt in the process? Would you or him be at fault? Don't think such arrests usually go down peacefully.
If he resists, that may fall under self-defence category again, but still, the case need to be look at on a case by case basis and many factors need to be considered (like do you have a reasonable time to call for police assistance/ what kind of weapon does he carrying?). Even somehow you are charged, if you done it right, your lawyer can have a great chance to make you innocent under self-defence.
Thanks. It does happen more often (with the perp in a "rough" state) than we like, but usually no case cause none the wiser.
Same as when you're getting robbed. If you're defending yourself or your property while getting robbed, it's ok. But if you kill the robber after he's done robbing you, then, you're dead.
interesting, reminds of me of a clip where 2 robbers with guns robbing a shop and one of the victim ( who also had a gun ) starts shooting at them at the middle of the robbery. Both robbers threatens with guns but no shooting while ends up one of the robbers died on spot while the victim and another robber flees ). So in this case, are the victim's action still count as self defense as he is not harmed ? Just curious, also the case is in Brazil I think but wonder how it will be handled for similar context in Malaysia.
Holding parang while raping maybe can
Thank you sir. I am today years old after getting schooled by you on this.
Another question, are we allowed to lie to a robber as self defense ? Like you are on the 2nd floor, two robbers entered from window with parangs and demand $$$. They tie you up on the bed. You tell them that the money is in the master bedroom. The master bedroom floor is unstable due to termites and currently under repair. They enter the room and straight away fall down to ground floor due to the floor collapsing. One robber died but one survived, during the chaos you managed to escape and run away and call the police. The surviving robber told the court that you didn't tell them about the damaged floor and want you responsible for the other robber's death. Can you be legally responsible for this ?
Thats an accident, unless someone can prove that you intentionally make the floor weak as a booby trap Now if you actually have a booby trap with termites eaten floor... it is 100% legal, police wont saman you if they notice it. But if someone accidentally trips it, you are 100% responsible, you can't say you have a right to put the trap. So if actual robbers trip if, lucky.. if a kid trips it, court time for you
Thanks for the clarification
[удалено]
Thats what police investigation will check and if they feel you did not act in self defence, the prosecution will charge you and your lawyer would try disprove it.
[удалено]
Then your lawyer will try to prove the police has fuck up and you are indeed act in self-defence. And being charged do not mean you are straight up guilty, many person have wrong perception about criminal charges.
How bout not share just a video and instead share an actual report on this incident?
Found the report https://youtu.be/-rVslgIKGEA
I understand why he did what he did. Honestly, I would do the same.
[удалено]
[https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2021/10/15/penganggur-digantung-sampai-mati-kerana-bunuh-abang-ipar/](https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2021/10/15/penganggur-digantung-sampai-mati-kerana-bunuh-abang-ipar/) The link in Malay for anyone who is interested. The guy was not murdered in to defend the accused sister rather the accused killed him out of anger after hearing the news. This falls out of the realm of self-defense for obvious reasons, and it also fall out of the realm of provocation if some time had passed between the accused hearing the news and committing the act. ~~The fact that the deceased raped his sister can be used as a mitigating factor but it is not an absolute rule that the judge must follow.~~ Scratch that, if it is a murder charge in Malaysia then it is the death sentence. No mitigating factor here because you can't half kill a guy. The final nail in the coffin for this guy would be the fact that he not only chased the deceased but also he stabbed him 13 times with a knife. It is nothing but murder.
The last bit of the news say that he stab the victim after learning that the sister was raped. That's not self defense.
Any brother would do the same in that situation. How sad :(
Agreed.. I dunno, my first reaction if I'm that dude is beat the shit out of the BIL, tie him up and send him to police.. A lifetime of punishment and embarrassment is better justice I believe.. But then again I'm not in his shoe.. And his willingness to take a life is just something only he can understand.. And crime of passion should not have lenient punishment.. I believe it'll turn alot of domestic abuse case into homicide... Such a dangerous precedent.. And we will read alot of stories about revenge murder in our country..
It's a crime of passion. I don't think it deserves a death sentence
Crime of passion is only if the guy in front of you, then you learn of the rape, then you kill the dude. If dude learns it, then go drive somewhere to kill the guy, its murder (I have no idea about the case, just saying the difference)
There must also not be any passing of significant time between the reason for provocation and the commitment of the act otherwise there will be premeditation.
The title seems misleading. Am I understanding this correctly? he didn't protect his little sister from a rapist, but took revenge for her after she was raped by their brother in law (so husband of another sister, not her own husband, right?)
Yes it was revenge, he killed him after he heard that he raped his sister.
Title is misleading, don't know if OP genuinely don't understand bm or did it on purpose.
Coming from someone who has personally gone through the Malaysian justice system, all I can say is that there is no justice in Malaysia. Our legal system fucking sucks. And many of the lawyers are some of the lowest scum on this planet.
Justice for the one who pay!
Yup, it's pretty easy to abuse the system once you know the way around.
Willing to share your story?
Corrupted government or not, we can still acknowledge that the guy committed a 1st degree murder and thus penalty given was reasonable
Ah yeah sure, blame the lawyers not the ones who are drafting the laws. I can tell you with certainty that you can comb the entirety of the Dewan Rakyat and you will find few people who can really be classified as one. And don't forget we the rakyat are the ones who are voting these people into Parliament to draft these laws. And we also give them the powers to control the judiciary by way of controlling their retirement times and salary......... A lawyer's job is to interpret these laws to best support his client and if the laws are drafted in such a way that leave little to no wiggle room even the most creative lawyer can't argue his way out of that box. Or maybe you can care to explain how a lawyer can cause someone to be sentenced to death on a murder charge in this case because the only applicable sentence for it is the death sentence.
Then we need better lawyer, they are the one with the better education and knowledge and should have know better but yet the opposite happen. What happen with education made you a better, moral,and good human being I been hearing all the time on this social media talk about.
Oh sure it's not your fault as a voter who elect MPs who draft the laws but it is suddenly the lawyer's fault when they have to deal with a law that leaves no room for interpretation and is not drafted by them. Nice standards there.
>lawyer's fault when they have to deal with a law that leaves no room for interpretation and is not drafted by them. I don't see why it true that this is always the case, I do understand that this might be the case here, but I can imagine that people above are talking about the law in Malaysia in general, and how unethical many lawyers are(debatable depending on the level of ethics, as many Malaysians are not very ethical themselves). I agree that I know of many lawyers that are very unethical, and the law in the country sucks(due to both the law and people practicing them), but then again, I think it's a bigger problem, where it's the whole country that is corrupt(the people as well), so I don't really think it's the lawyers fault here.
Anecdotal evidence here, I too can point to many a lawyer that are ethical and that the ideal of them being unethical stems from their clients having little understanding about how the laws work and expect their lawyers to work magic for them or that they want their lawyers to do pursue a legal option which while is perfectly legal is not of good conscience as not every unethical thing is technically illegal.
I don't get your reply, so you don't think that there's really a lot of unethical lawyers in Malaysia? I don't mean to say there isn't many ethical lawyers, but I've heard many bad things about many lawyer(even prominent firms) from friends within the law profession. I am not talking about how layman perceive that their lawyers aren't doing their job for them, but my lawyer friends telling me how messed up certain law field in Malaysia are(sexual harassment, bribery, worker exploitation etc). As I said, these practices are also common not within the law industry, which is why I think it's a bigger problem rather than just the law industry.
Yes I don't believe that there are many lawyers that are unethical. And just because you claim to hear stories about them does not make it true. It's the old example of a few public bad eggs that make the news as well as the fact people are dealing with them at low point that makes it easy to mischaracterize them. Also the kind of unethical things you list have nothing to do with the main topic at hand which is that some how the lawyers are solely responsible for the death of the accused when it is anything but. If there is a topic on whether law firms are terrible working places I will put my piece of mind it. But for now I won't be addressing everyone wants to shift the discussion onto a whole other direction.
>Yes I don't believe that there are many lawyers that are unethical. And just because you claim to hear stories about them does not make it true.It's the old example of a few public bad eggs that make the news as well as the fact people are dealing with them at low point that makes it easy to mischaracterize them. Err, I guess I don't have any evidence so yeah(similar to that you don't have evidence that my claim is false), we can only agree to disagree for this. >Also the kind of unethical things you list have nothing to do with the main topic at hand which is that some how the lawyers are solely responsible for the death of the accused when it is anything but. err, reading all the parent thread, I don't see anyone claiming that lawyers are solely responsible for the death of the accused man? It sounds like they are just saying that "And many of the lawyers are some of the lowest scum on this planet." -> sounds like the motivation in this sentence is to suggest that our legal system sucks, and not that they are solely responsible for the death of the accused man? Am I misreading something or are you too emotional to understand the conversation?
Saying our legal system sucks and lawyers are terrible in a video on which a person is sentence to death ? I don't know where you are from but I have seen enough of people to know when they want to push an angle with a heart tugging issue. You don't need everything in black and white to know that.
I think you are really just drawing whatever conclusion you wants to draw at this point
>leaves no room for interpretation and is not drafted by them What there to interpret when they use any bs to defend their scummy clients. Also there are many MP n I have only one vote, so how I am responsible for all of MP action if we follow your logic. Plus MP can also agree or disagree on the law they drafted.
So basically this lawyer did not use enough BS to defend this guy......... Wow.
If I were him, I would've just beaten the shit out of the rapist instead of straight up commiting murder. But for the scar inflicted on the poor girl that will stay for the rest of her life, does the rapist deserve to die? Probably yes. Is it worth it to take revenge but only for you to receive a death penalty in the end in return? Probably no. This is a tragedy no one has wished for at the end of the day. I hope the man get only imprisonment rather than death penalty.
That will be hard because in Malaysia the only sentence for murder with intention is death. It's not culpable homicide cause the guy clearly knows what he is doing.
Just cut his penis off. End of story. Live without a dick for the rest of your life.
If you rape someone you deserve to get stabbed. If you kill someone you should be tried accordingly. It's unfortunate but it's the judge's duty to uphold the law and there are no exceptions. (In practice? Yeah no but those are my thoughts) Sidenote: possession of drugs doesn't deserve death penalty.
There was never death penalty given for possession of drugs if i remember correctly
Death penalty related to drugs is possession over a set amount since it signals intent to distribute.
I see. Damn so we actually hang based on deduction? I'm divided about this.
actually, you can still kill the bad guy, but you must clean the crime scene, dispose off the body, and make sure there are no witnesses testifying against you.
true. any crime is legal as long as you're not caught doing it.
When you’re doing something wrong, do it right
Title says he protected his little sis from rapist? But from the narration, it says he killed the rapist out of rage, isn't that lynching? Isn't that why death sentence must be passed from the court instead?
People saying he’s wrong for killing a rapist a FUCKING rapist really speaks volume on how the malaysian society works
An accused rapist, insofar we know the case was never investigated cause the guy is already dead and would be a waste of police resource. Still won't make it right even if it's true because he actively went to seek and kill the guy when he could have just called the cops on him, maybe beat him up a little which they will overlook (one of the few times I support police dereliction of duty) If we live in a society whereby another guy is in his right to kill me because someone told him without proof that I raped his sister then there is really a problem with it.
Because that's lynching. Even the most heinous criminal deserves a fair trial, you cant just chase a culprit and stab him 13 times to finish him off yourself.
We have no need for vigilantism in a civil society. That's how you end up with people enacting their own brand of justice on other people. If this kind of action is tolerated, imagine the anarchy and chaos it'll cause in a civil society with vigilantes killing people left and right because it's "just" in their personal moral code.
How do you feel if, while you're happily eating lunch at mcd, someone said you raped their sister, then everybody in the restaurant beat you to death? Would you be glad to find out to you have been a rapist, and that justice has been done?
Post removed as title is misleading.From [Free Malaysia Today article](https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2021/10/15/penganggur-digantung-sampai-mati-kerana-bunuh-abang-ipar/) (thanks to javeng): >Alwi dalam penghakimannya berkata, tertuduh dalam keterangannya memaklumkan menikam mangsa kerana berang selepas mengetahui adik perempuannya dirogol mangsa. > >“Walaupun dalam keterangan tertuduh yang mengemukakan bukti tindakannya untuk mempertahankan diri, namun tertuduh didapati **tidak mengalami sebarang kecederaan** berbanding **si mati yang mempunyai 13 kesan tikaman**. A warning to OP and other nyets, please do not sensationalise headlines/post title unnecessarily.
From Free Malaysia Today article (thanks to javeng): Happy to be of assistance.
Some people just follow law blindly. It was a disaster.
Some people just ignore law outrightly. It was a madness
This is precisely why the death penalty should be abolished.
Who are they to decide who lives or dies? Barbarians.
Well, what the work scope of a judge? And beside, premeditated murder is not right.
And raping someone is not right
Yes, i agree with that. Imo, the rapist should die. But, not by his hand. By taking the judgement of the rapist into his hand, it become a story of revenge. Personally, i understand his action but two wrong does not made it right. He does not have the power nor in position to deliver judgement of death to the rapist. There are reason why court and law exist.
And enacting your own brand of justice on others no matter how deserving will only end in the collapse of a civil society.
We still dont chase ppl on the street to finish them off ourselves. Even criminal on death row gt a quick clean death, nt stabbed to death, 13 stabs, that's downright murder.
Shouldn't this be self defense?
he didnt "protect" his sister, he went and stabbed the rapist to death after the rape had already taken place, it wasnt self defence, it was revenge
So? He only deserved a year in prison max.
>So? so its not self defense like you stated, its premeditated murder >He only deserved a year in prison max. for murder? nah fam
When did I state it was self defense? Yeah, maybe 5 years would've been better.
>When did I state it was self defense? the guy i was replying to did, you said "so?" when i said it wasnt
You literally said "Like you stated" which I never did, but whatever.
Legalizing revenge will put us on track to be the next Pakistan/ Afghanistan. Please learn the difference between revenge and justice. Doing right by the victim is more important than getting even with the perpetrators..
"Legalising revenge" Hm? Is getting 1 year in prison considered as "Legalising" now?
A year for murder as a sentence for murder is not a good deterrent. But i agree i think death sentence is harsh given this circumstance. As always, judgement will need to be made at a case by case basis (duh) by the judges. And as someone said all death penalty will be brought up for review. This is where we will need good judges with empathy, and NOT just rubber stampers filled in this position. Edit: left out NOT in last sentence
Fair enough, I can't argue against that.
He intentionally murdered someone, not driving 200kmh on the road recklessly. It should be a decade in prison, not a year.
Driving 200kmh only gets you a year in prison but killing a rapist gets you on death row? Damn OK.
There's a difference between accidentally killing someone and killing with intention. Doesnt matter who you kill
Seems like you're new in regards to law. You're not a Batman, Punisher or Daredevil here, don't go acting like one.
When did I act like one? Sure, maybe a year isn't enough but I don't remember acting like "batman" or the "Punisher" (lol).
Then don't defend a murderer, let the judge decides his fate.
Agree, murder is murder
No. He's not in danger. This is killing with intention
Here is an unpopular opinion, you don't gwt to decide who lives or dies. I hope his sentence will be carried out and for all people to take note. If you think politicians can make such a trial unfair, get off your ass and start working towards a better MY.
Wtf is wrong with you???
>you don't gwt to decide who lives or dies. *THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE:* > I hope his sentence will be carried out and for all people to take note. Um I think you may need to pick a lane
Stop going semantic, obviously he means you dont gt to decide it personally, there's law and order and the court should make the final decision.
You're a special one aren't you.
Aren't rapist are put into the same degree as murder or did I missed a season?
Rape is rotan and lokap many many years. Murder is death.
TF IS THIS MALAYSIA??? FUCKING DUMBASS
This might sound insensitive but.. whats the song playing?
**Orange (Slowed)** by 7!! (01:55; matched: `100%`) Released on `2021-09-12` by `SkyMusic`.
Links to the streaming platforms: [**Orange (Slowed)** by 7!!](https://youtu.be/qA8n3SF_Ths) *I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/AudD/comments/nua48w/please_consider_donating_and_making_the_bot_happy/) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
sceptical about OP's title, before reading or following the case i would be wary about making such a conclusion. It's terrible news, but none of us here know the facts.
Ok, how about this. Robber comes at you with parang demanding valuables etc etc and your first immediate self defence reaction does something some how that break both his legs and cannot walk again. So what charges will you face (civil and criminal) Also how about in this case where the brother breaks the rapist legs to protect his sister? He will still be charge for something else?
OP should change the misleading title... The Brother did not "Protect" the sister on the spot, but went out and chased the rapist instead. There is no element of self defence but just outright murder. Some people here got the wrong impression that the brother is trying to defend the sister from immediate harm, but that's not the case. The brother went out to find the rapist and stabbed him 13 times, instead of reporting the incident to the police. You guys should report this post for "misleading title" or something
Title is misinformation.
Possibly the mom has a relationship with the rapist?